SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (14768)11/16/2006 4:55:50 PM
From: Jim S  Respond to of 71588
 
If I'm not mistaken, the Catholic Church made a decision on the use of BC pills quite a while ago, and it was reaffirmed by Paul only a few years ago. Kinda hard to overturn that much precident.

The point I was trying to make, somewhat obliquely, is that if people aren't opposed to BC pills, they shouldn't have any objection to stem cell research. Both kill fertilized embryos.

PROLIFE had the consistent answer, in that he's opposed to both.



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (14768)11/16/2006 5:04:32 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
The Catholic stance isn't just based on the rights of the fetus or embryo. That is an important issue for the church, but it isn't the only one.

I don't think most of the other arguments are ones that have much weight outside a purely religious framework, while arguments about the rights of the unborn can have such weight.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News